<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (9) TMI 1213 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298961</link>
    <description>Territorial jurisdiction for a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint lies where any constituent act of the offence occurs, including presentation of the cheque and issuance of notice from that ation; on these facts, the Gurgaon court had jurisdiction. A cheque described as a security cheque is not outside Section 138 merely because of that label; where it is issued in relation to an existing or enforceable liability and is presented under the transaction, its dishonour may attract statutory liability. The territorial objection and the argument of immunity for a security cheque were both rejected, and the complaint and summoning proceedings were allowed to continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2023 14:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 1213 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298961</link>
      <description>Territorial jurisdiction for a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint lies where any constituent act of the offence occurs, including presentation of the cheque and issuance of notice from that ation; on these facts, the Gurgaon court had jurisdiction. A cheque described as a security cheque is not outside Section 138 merely because of that label; where it is issued in relation to an existing or enforceable liability and is presented under the transaction, its dishonour may attract statutory liability. The territorial objection and the argument of immunity for a security cheque were both rejected, and the complaint and summoning proceedings were allowed to continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298961</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>